My wife left me!

[Kazan' Tiger 1]

Kiki Dee actually looks just like a Russian lady I met over there once. Right down to the haircut!

[slim 1,525]

I think you guys are in the wrong forum.

But, since we're here, let's get another topic going.....

I had a buddy in the military (female) who wanted to sponsor her girlfriend into the U.S. via K-1 visa. Obviously, she wasn't able to do that because it was girl-girl, but it was also a military girl-girl.

Thoughts, comments... possibilities on someday allowing same-sex sponsorships for K-visas?

[mox 298]

I for one am totally unopposed to hawt girl-on-girl filing.

[slim 1,525]

I for one am totally unopposed to hawt girl-on-girl filing.

The hawt part is suspect. Remember, these are military chicks we're talking about. Not just military chicks, but homosexual military chicks.

[mox 298]

So...we're not talking Ukranian army huh?

[Kazan' Tiger 1]

I don't know... I've seen some extremely gorgeous Russian female soldiers and some damn hot militsiya babes in Kazan'.

I for one am totally unopposed to hawt girl-on-girl filing.

The hawt part is suspect. Remember, these are military chicks we're talking about. Not just military chicks, but homosexual military chicks.

[eekee 182]

I'm scared of all miliciya, even female ones. Yesterday we asked policemen in rome who were directing traffic for directions, and three of them started poring over a map together to help us out. It was a really big shock for my guy. "Wow! Police who are actually nice and helpful and whose chief concern is people's safety!" Guy or girl, when i see a russian police officer i cross the street. If i were ever stopped for my dokumenty i'd probably have a panic attack. Good thing i'm blonde and female.

If the US legalized same-sex marriage they'd have to do same-sex k-1s, i guess. I know a friend of a friend who immigrated to australia to be with her gf, but i'm not sure whether they actually married or what. And "don't ask, don't tell" makes me want to vomit.

[Satellite 1]

If the US legalized same-sex marriage they'd have to do same-sex k-1s, i guess. I know a friend of a friend who immigrated to Australia to be with her gf, but i'm not sure whether they actually married or what. And "don't ask, don't tell" makes me want to vomit.

Not necessarily. The laws of marriage are completely governed by the states. The constitution does not grant congress the power to control it. Controlling immigration, however, is an enumerated that congress has. Thus all the states could legalize same sex marriage and congress can still choose to not recognize it for immigration and taxation purposes. Edited March 27, 2008 by Satellite

[eekee 182]

Couldn't the opposite be true as well then--that congress could recognize it for immigration purposes, but the state wouldn't?

Not necessarily. The laws of marriage are completely governed by the states. The constitution does not grant congress the power to control it. Controlling immigration, however, is an enumerated that congress has. Thus all the states could legalize same sex marriage and congress can still choose to not recognize it for immigration and taxation purposes.

[mox 298]

Couldn't the opposite be true as well then--that congress could recognize it for immigration purposes, but the state wouldn't?

Well, with very few exceptions, Federal law trumps state law. That's why the marriage debate has been so hotly debated. There are people (like me) that believe states should be the sole arbitrator on marriage, and then there are those who want to actually change the constitution to rigidly define marriage at the Federal level. If this were to happen then States would be unable to allow same-sex marriage.

[slim 1,525]

Yes, but only if the Federal law was to recognize marriage as a union between a man and a woman ONLY. I would say they have better things to do.... like investigating Major League Baseball, looking for bin Laden, etc., but I guess actually legislating something may be on the horizon.

Oh wait, we're talking about the U.S. govt.

And it's election year.....

Nothing's getting done this year. Thank you Mr. Bush!

[Satellite 1]

Couldn't the opposite be true as well then--that congress could recognize it for immigration purposes, but the state wouldn't?

Well historically marriage has been controlled by the states. The state's have a strong 10th amendment argument if the feds interfere with it. Ever heard of divorce matter being litigated in federal district court based on say diversity jurisdiction or a federal question? It hasn't trust me on this one. The feds did pass the defense against marriage act, which concerns really the full faith and credit clause of the US constitution. Many scholars will argue that the act is illegal because it asks the state’s to ignore the full faith and credit clause by refusing to recognize a valid “marriage” from a sister state, Massachusetts comes to mind. But the full faith and credit clause might not be violated at all, because states can refuse recognize anything that is repugnant to their values and laws. Anyway, I think it would be a stretch to allow congress to regulate the laws of marriage. They’d have to articulate the law under say the commerce clause, taxing and spending, or some other enumerated power.

Well, with very few exceptions, Federal law trumps state law. That's why the marriage debate has been so hotly debated. There are people (like me) that believe states should be the sole arbitrator on marriage, and then there are those who want to actually change the constitution to rigidly define marriage at the Federal level. If this were to happen then States would be unable to allow same-sex marriage.

Federal law does trump state law under the supremacy clause, assuming however, the federal law was properly passed to begin with. A federal controlling marriage would not do so and would violate the 10th amendment. As I understand it states do have the power to define a valid marriage in their state. Yes, a constitutional amendment would be the best solution to solidify the law in either direction.

[slim 1,525]

And we all know how easy it is to amend the Constitution!

[mox 298]

Federal law does trump state law under the supremacy clause, assuming however, the federal law was properly passed to begin with. A federal controlling marriage would not do so and would violate the 10th amendment. As I understand it states do have the power to define a valid marriage in their state. Yes, a constitutional amendment would be the best solution to solidify the law in either direction.

Yes. That's why the Republicans are pushing for an amendment to the Constitution. It's the only way they're going to be able to get their bigotry to stick. It has fortunately lost momentum recently, especially in the face of the immigration "debate" (quoted because it's nothing more than a spectacle), Obama's pastor, and Hillary's trip to Bosnia. Thank you 24 hour cable news.

[slim 1,525]

How did we ever have scandals before news was "fair and balanced"???